a mosque at ground zero

[billy]

it's okay and pertinent.


i took the catholics from the christian faiths but there could be more. i 'd say for choice, the more the merrier. a religious hub.

i think the problem is that the person or group who want to build/start the mosque at zero has a bad past when it comes to showing peace and harmony. he's said some pretty inflammatory things as well. anyway, i think the idea is good but the person formulating it might not be. it's why i say let the gove build it and rent it out to what ever faith wishes to take part.

[srijantje]

so the best thing i heard is to built a multi religious building,sounds good to me

[altezon]

The "Ground Zero Mosque" that we have been hearing so much about is not at Ground Zero, nor is it a mosque.

The future site of the Cordoba House and its relation to Ground Zero:



From 45 Park Place (marked 'A'), the planned site of the Cordoba House, it's two blocks and around
a corner to get to the WTC site (marked 'B'). Park Place doesn't lie between the construction site
and any mass transit stations, so you would need to go out of your way to have it offend you.

It took two minutes to walk from Ground Zero to 45 Park Place with a shaky video camera.
Here's the clip, first sped up to 4X speed then slowed down to 1X:

[youtube]zUYOPHxpTfU[/youtube]

The building planned for 45 Park Place is a 13-story community center that would include a performance-art center, gym, swimming pool, and a prayer-auditorium expected to accomodate 1000-2000 muslims. That it may even be called a mosque is debatable. It is designed as a multi-use complex that will be open to all New Yorkers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledg...60585.html

Imam Rauf, who helped found the Cordoba Initiative following the 9/11 attacks,
says the project is intended to foster better relations between the West and Muslims.



Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a Kuwaiti-American Muslim, author, and activist whose stated goal is to improve relations between the Muslim World and the West. He has been Imam of Masjid al-Farah, a New York City mosque, since 1983.

He has written three books on Islam and its place in contemporary Western society, including "What's Right with Islam is What's Right with America", and has founded two non-profit organizations whose stated missions are to enhance the discourse on Islam in society. He has condemned the 9/11 attacks as un-Islamic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisel_Abdul_Rauf

Americans should carefully consider whether a properly-permitted project to be built on private land should be hindered due to religious discrimination. Some of the 9/11 victims were muslim after all, as are many of our citizens. But you wouldn't know it from the prominent cross displayed on the site, to which groups such as the American Atheists and the Coalition for Jewish Concerns have objected.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_cross

Four Christian churches are within a block of Ground Zero, including one that faces it from across the street. If two and a half blocks and out of sight of Ground Zero is too close, how far away should the Cordoba House be before it ceases to offend?

http://wtfiswrong.com/2010/08/world-trade-center/

[mrmod]

I think the titles in news papers are just for the shock factor (especially directed at Christian Americans). To be honest, if it was the Maná Church there would be not one single mention, but being muslim changes it all. It's not as if it changes anything, it's just a centre...

[billy]

if it's in new york it's at ground zero lmao.

the USA as obama points out is built on the premise of religious freedom isn't it. why has that changed, personally i think some of those who decry it are doing so for points.

[altezon]

wouldn't it be good if the gov said yes you can have a mosque there to pray in as long as you also have the next four biggest religions. i think if such a place does get built it has to be done from government funding.

let the gove build it and rent it out to what ever faith wishes to take part.

There are three problems with your suggestion:

The project has already been approved by the city. My sense is that the only basis for denying permits would have been zoning laws and building codes.

It's being built on privately-owned land. The Government (the United States and the State of New York are separate governments) can't arbitrarily take the land and decide what to use it for except in cases of eminent domain, which doesn't apply here.

Both the state and federal constitutions forbid government from being a religious referee, except where alleged constitutional violations of "the separation of church and state" are brought to the attention of a court.

i think the problem is that the person or group who want to build/start the mosque at zero has a bad past when it comes to showing peace and harmony. he's said some pretty inflammatory things as well. anyway, i think the idea is good but the person formulating it might not be.

Can you be more specific?

if it's in new york it's at ground zero lmao.

the USA as obama points out is built on the premise of religious freedom isn't it. why has that changed, personally i think some of those who decry it are doing so for points.

Being American doesn't guarantee that you understand or even accept
your own Constitution (unless of course you're a naturalized citizen).

[billy]

There are three problems with your suggestion:

The project has already been approved by the city. My sense is that the only basis for denying permits would have been zoning laws and building codes.

It's being built on privately-owned land. The Government (the United States and the State of New York are separate governments) can't arbitrarily take the land and decide what to use it for except in cases of eminent domain, which doesn't apply here.

Both the state and federal constitutions forbid government from being a religious referee, except where alleged constitutional violations of "the separation of church and state" are brought to the attention of a court.

first off, i'm not saying the gov should build it at that specific place, i'm saying they could build it at ground zero. if you read my other posts you'll see where i said in the shape of a wheel with a multi religious community centre at it's hub, something that wouldn't be possible in the space of the building they wish to use.

the gov can stop whatever the shit it wants. it has the ability to put so many orders against something the mosque would never see the light of day. the fact land is privately owned doesn't mean it can automatically be used as a church or place of worship. it can be stopped simply because building it where it is would cause traffic congestion. it's as easy as that. the gov doesn't have to be a religious referee. all it has to do is say it's unsafe for pedestrians, it's a fire hazard to neighbouring buildings. the noise pollution from the loud prayers isn't acceptable.

billy Wrote: i think the problem is that the person or group who want to build/start the mosque at zero has a bad past when it comes to showing peace and harmony. he's said some pretty inflammatory things as well. anyway, i think the idea is good but the person formulating it might not be.

you said could i be more specific?


Zahar is a co-founder of Hamas and its chief on the Gaza Strip.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer says Zahar's comments don't carry any weight because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Schumer hasn't taken a stand on the mosque.
source:

something i agree with. build it by all means but at least make sure those in charge are'nt going to be ex hamas leaders. as leader of hamas he said and did too many nasty things to make him a believable person (his position which is fact, means no source of his hatred for jews and the west is needed, it is and was always a given) to front such a project in such a place. if anything his past makes his motives highly suspect.

a bit like the ss wanting to open a bar or meeting place for prayer in Jerusalem

[srijantje]

you can say the same thing about wanting to build a sinagogue at the site,for me the israeli government is a terrorist organisation

[altezon]

There are three problems with your suggestion.

first off, i'm not saying the gov should build it at that specific place, i'm saying they could build it at ground zero.

Yes, but that was when you thought the "mosque" was to be built at Ground Zero.

The project has already been approved by the city. My sense is that the only basis for denying permits would have been zoning laws and building codes.

the gov can stop whatever the shit it wants. it has the ability to put so many orders against something the mosque would never see the light of day.all it has to do is say it's unsafe for pedestrians, it's a fire hazard to neighbouring buildings. the noise pollution from the loud prayers isn't acceptable.

What government do you mean? city? state? federal?
In any case, you're confusing us with nazi Germany, I think.

It's being built on privately-owned land. The Government (the United States and the State of New York are separate governments) can't arbitrarily take the land and decide what to use it for except in cases of eminent domain, which doesn't apply here

the fact land is privately owned doesn't mean it can automatically be used as a church or place of worship. it can be stopped simply because building it where it is would cause traffic congestion. it's as easy as that.

No it isn't. The permits have already been issued by the city,
presumably because the project meets the zoning and building code requirements.

Both the state and federal constitutions forbid government from being a religious referee, except where alleged constitutional violations of "the separation of church and state" are brought to the attention of a court.

the gov doesn't have to be a religious referee.

I think you should listen to yourself:

wouldn't it be good if the gov said yes you can have a mosque there to pray in as long as you also have the next four biggest religions. i think if such a place does get built it has to be done from government funding.

You're saying "the government" should stop the project by threatening to drown them in frivolous orders based on "it's unsafe for pedestrians, it's a fire hazard to neighbouring buildings. the noise pollution from the loud prayers isn't acceptable" unless they share with four other religions of the government's choosing (the "biggest" ones, or whatever).
And if the project managers agree to that the government will take over and fund the whole project? to build a religious center? This is forbidden by our Constitution.

i think the problem is that the person or group who want to build/start the mosque at zero has a bad past when it comes to showing peace and harmony. he's said some pretty inflammatory things as well. anyway, i think the idea is good but the person formulating it might not be.

Can you be more specific?

Zahar is a co-founder of Hamas and its chief on the Gaza Strip.

New York Sen. Chuck Schumer says Zahar's comments don't carry any weight because Hamas is a terrorist organization. Schumer hasn't taken a stand on the mosque.
source:

something i agree with. build it by all means but at least make sure those in charge are'nt going to be ex hamas leaders. as leader of hamas he said and did too many nasty things to make him a believable person (his position which is fact, means no source of his hatred for jews and the west is needed, it is and was always a given) to front such a project in such a place. if anything his past makes his motives highly suspect.

a bit like the ss wanting to open a bar or meeting place for prayer in Jerusalem

I hate to break this to ya, but Zahar isn't "the person or group who want to build/start the mosque" that you referred to. The center is a project of the Cordoba Initiative, an advocacy group that promotes improved relations between Islam and the West. The group was founded by Kuwaiti-American Feisal Abdul Rauf, who has been Imam of another New York City mosque since 1983 (see my earlier post).
http://pigpenpoetry.com/showthread.php?t...4#pid36654

[billy]

Yes, but that was when you thought the "mosque" was to be built at Ground Zero.

yes i said build at ground zero. two blocks from it...naw

What government do you mean? city? state? federal?
In any case, you're confusing us with nazi Germany, I think.

any or all and no, it happens all the time, if they don't like they kill it with red tape. it's called bureaucracy

No it isn't. The permits have already been issued by the city,
presumably because the project meets the zoning and building code requirements.

so you're saying someone can't come along and say afraid not sir. we seem to have a problem. sorry but i've seen it too many times. yes you have planning permission then after it's done or even before they take it away for some obscure point of law. like bureaucracy it happens all the time and the more you protest the thicker the shit gets.

I think you should listen to yourself:

i do, and i often read what i write. i do not nor will i ever belive that if a gove, any gov wants something stopped, they don't have or aren't able to find the power to stop it. the usa gov invaded vietnam, iraq and afghanistan as well as korea because they wanted to. you really believe because it's religious or a mosque that that point would stop them. maybe you should listen to yourself

You're saying "the government" should stop the project by threatening to drown them in frivolous orders based on "it's unsafe for pedestrians, it's a fire hazard to neighbouring buildings. the noise pollution from the loud prayers isn't acceptable" unless they share with four other religions of the government's choosing (the "biggest" ones, or whatever).
And if the project managers agree to that the government will take over and fund the whole project? to build a religious center? This is forbidden by our Constitution.

no i'm say they could if they so desired. and i'm saying i think the gov should build a multi cultural place of worship at ground zero. (not in some three floor slop house. thats in some narrow street where thousands of sightseerers will flock to without any intension of worship there.

for you Israel maybe a terrorist org but internationally it isn't seen that way. hammas is, zaher is the front man. and he's an ex terrorist regognised as such.

i've seen the earlier post but don't take it as fact. the money still isn't available and zaher is to all intent the front man.

[altezon]

Yes, but that was when you thought the "mosque" was to be built at Ground Zero.

yes i said build at ground zero. two blocks from it...naw

Buah ha ha, you a slippery one but i not let you get away.

What government do you mean? city? state? federal?
In any case, you're confusing us with nazi Germany, I think.

any or all and no, it happens all the time, if they don't like they kill it with red tape. it's called bureaucracy

Bureaucracy only happen when nobody looking.

No it isn't. The permits have already been issued by the city,
presumably because the project meets the zoning and building code requirements.

so you're saying someone can't come along and say afraid not sir. we seem to have a problem. sorry but i've seen it too many times. yes you have planning permission then after it's done or even before they take it away for some obscure point of law. like bureaucracy it happens all the time and the more you protest the thicker the shit gets.

Not this time.

I think you should listen to yourself:

i do, and i often read what i write. i do not nor will i ever belive that if a gove, any gov wants something stopped, they don't have or aren't able to find the power to stop it. the usa gov invaded vietnam, iraq and afghanistan as well as korea because they wanted to. you really believe because it's religious or a mosque that that point would stop them. maybe you should listen to yourself

I probably listen to myself more than I should
Invasion of vietnam, iraq and afghanistan as well as korea are possible.
Stop Cordoba House after permission given -- not possible.

You're saying "the government" should stop the project by threatening to drown them in frivolous orders based on "it's unsafe for pedestrians, it's a fire hazard to neighbouring buildings. the noise pollution from the loud prayers isn't acceptable" unless they share with four other religions of the government's choosing (the "biggest" ones, or whatever).
And if the project managers agree to that the government will take over and fund the whole project? to build a religious center? This is forbidden by our Constitution.

no i'm say they could if they so desired. and i'm saying i think the gov should build a multi cultural place of worship at ground zero. (not in some three floor slop house. thats in some narrow street where thousands of sightseerers will flock to without any intension of worship there.

Hello, anybody home? Gov build worship house is constitution-impossible.
Not ordinary impossible, but impossible impossible.

for you Israel maybe a terrorist org but internationally it isn't seen that way.

@ srijantje: sic him, sj

hammas is a terrorist org, zaher is the front man. and he's an ex terrorist regognised as such. i've seen the earlier post but don't take it as fact. the money still isn't available and zaher is to all intent the front man.

Non sequitur. What planet are you calling from??

[billy]

Bureaucracy only happen when nobody looking.

you mean like proposal 8, either side of the oil moratorium, the gays in uniform with their do but don't tell laws, bureaucracy is at it's very best when it's done in the open. the stop and search laws relating to immigration in Texas. the american healthcare system over the last 20 years. imports and export duties favouring the host country. tax collecting. all slight of hand bureaucracy.

Stop Cordoba House after permission given -- not possible.

time will tell

Hello, anybody home? Gov build worship house is constitution-impossible.
Not ordinary impossible, but impossible impossible.

a multi cultural place of worship would negate them not being able to be involved in the building of it. no one said they would run it. it would just be a building untill it was populated i'm sure the white house has a place of worship built within as does the pentagon and many other government places such as armed forces bases and embassies etc.

Non sequitur. What planet are you calling from??

why, and please don't comment on me or my planet, stick to the debate not the debater

why is non sequiter that i find the front man (spokesperson) for the mosques to be built an ex hammas leader (fact) unsuitable to not only be taking part but to be seemingly orchestrating things under the guise of cordoba, who as of yet has not put any money forward. i won't enquire as to your home planet but i personally try not to just accept an ex terrorists word as gospel (if you pardon the christian pun)

[altezon]

Bureaucracy only happen when nobody looking.

you mean like proposal 8, either side of the oil moratorium, the gays in uniform with their do but don't tell laws, bureaucracy is at it's very best when it's done in the open. the stop and search laws relating to immigration in Texas. the american healthcare system over the last 20 years. imports and export duties favouring the host country. tax collecting. all slight of hand bureaucracy.

Well, you've broadened the concept of bureaucracy beyond deliberately "killing it with red tape", by which you implied means inventing spurious reasons to kill a legally-permissible building project because the true reasons would conflict with countless constitutional and statutory protections. We don't have a dictatorship, and enough of us are paying attention to prevent it and to bring down whoever tries it. I won't bother citing examples, because I'm sensing that nothing I say will alter your position.

And BTW, most of the things you've cited here aren't examples of bureaucracy.

Hello, anybody home? Gov build worship house is constitution-impossible.
Not ordinary impossible, but impossible impossible.

a multi cultural place of worship would negate them not being able to be involved in the building of it. no one said they would run it. it would just be a building until it was populated i'm sure the white house has a place of worship built within as does the pentagon and many other government places such as armed forces bases and embassies etc.

Chapels yes -- rooms set aside in existing structures for the convenience of government employees (military bases are a special case). But as for your proposal, the very act of designating what religions can or cannot be in such a project is prohibited.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_...ted_States

Non sequitur. What planet are you calling from??

why, and please don't comment on me or my planet, stick to the debate not the debater

All right, if we're to be sober now.

why is non sequiter that i find the front man (spokesperson) for the mosques to be built an ex hammas leader (fact) unsuitable to not only be taking part but to be seemingly orchestrating things under the guise of cordoba, who as of yet has not put any money forward. i won't enquire as to your home planet but i personally try not to just accept an ex terrorists word as gospel (if you pardon the christian pun)

It's a non sequitur in the sense that it doesn't respond to information I've given you.
I'll give it again: your ex-Hamas leader has nothing to do with Cordoba House.
Reread your own link, and then see http://pigpenpoetry.com/showthread.php?t...4#pid36654

[srijantje]

if you shoot rockets from the air into ghetto's ,you're a terrorist organisation,more so if you're a so called government,if the international community recognises this or not does not make a difference

[altezon]

I prefer an early definition of terrorism (whose source and precise wording
I can no longer find) proposed by a UN committee. The elements are simple:

The deliberate use of violence against noncombatants as a means of coercion.

It doesn't distinguish between governments and non-governmental entities, or between wartime and peacetime.

I like it because it reduces the definition to a set of acts and motives,
without emotional color, regardless of who the actor is.

[addy]

The deliberate use of violence against noncombatants as a means of coercion.

I like that definition. Though I'm sure many governments would find it "problematic" (read: inconvenient)

[altezon]

I like that definition. Though I'm sure many governments would find it "problematic" (read: inconvenient)

Indeed. It has to be the most confusing word in the English language, since it's been given hundreds of different definitions over the years. The obvious problem is it's become simply an epithet to demonize one's enemy. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are of course the most glaring examples of the simpler definition.

[billy]

the cordoba group have assets of about 20'000 and are onlt part of a consortium theat have very little cash at hand. though it's called cordoba house it is not owned solely by the cordoba group. soho properties own part of the site and the site lease for the other part. cordoba group is just a really small investor so why you keep touting their name i have no idea. one of the reasons people are against the mosque is in fact the name "cordoba house" as that is a derogotory name where christians are concerned after muslims overran the christians at certian places in spain.

you ask or say they have planning permission and because of that it's a done deal. this says it's no where near a done deal and could be tied up in red tape and court proceedings till the cows come home;

[b]On August 3, 2010, however, New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 9–0 against granting landmark status and historic protection to the building. That cleared the way for it to be razed, and the new Cordoba House to be built in its place. The Commission's members had been appointed by Mayor Bloomberg, a supporter of the new structure.

The following day, Timothy Brown, a firefighter who survived 9/11, filed a suit in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan asking the court to nullify the Commission's decision.[ He praised 45–47 Park Place, quoting the Commission's own description of it as "a fine example of the Italian Renaissance-inspired palazzi" that flourished in the mid-1800s in the area.[98] The suit was filed on his behalf by the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative public interest firm.

one of the stepping stones your non owning cordoba group who don't actually own but only have a small investment in the project face is the same as soho properties face. there is a hue and cry for them to say where the cash (100 mil dollars) is coming from.
some are sceptical that it's probably coming from terror organisations. and countries who have axes to grind against the west. while bloomberg and some others say we don't need to know there intellect has to be questioned on the matter. if indeed it does come about that the mosque is funded by terrorist organisations and states they'll look rather silly. to simply say no one needs to know seems a little perturbing.

the ex hamas leader has been seen to speak on behalf of the soho group on cnn. i saw him doing it. my eye sight is bad but i yet to be deemed blind.

the american gov can build buildings. it is not and has never been against any statutes fr them not to do so. once the building is done they simply say there you are new york, it's yours. they build a building not a church. just a shell building are not and have never been on their own deemed church, mosque or synagogue. before that can happen the ground has to be consecrated. something the gov can't do. people build churches, workmen build building. if this was not the case churches, mosques etc would never get planning permission?

inventing spurious but non the less usuable reasons.

bu·reauc·ra·cy (by-rkr-s)
n. pl. bu·reauc·ra·cies
1.
a. Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials.
b. The departments and their officials as a group: promised to reorganize the federal bureaucracy.
2.
a. Management or administration marked by hierarchical authority among numerous offices and by fixed procedures: The new department head did not know much about bureaucracy.
b. The administrative structure of a large or complex organization: a midlevel manager in a corporate bureaucracy.
3. An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action: innovative ideas that get bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy.

all it takes is three separate people to complain about the noise to have a court order placed on them. all it takes is for three or more residents to complain that they are causing more congestion that before. all it takes is an odd lawsuit, one illegality in the contracts, surveys etc, of which they'll be dozens.

anyway, as i said. i'll wait and see.

i think their should be a multi religious center at ground zero. (at ground zero)
but i doubt cordoba house will become a mosque and if it does i bet it doesn't stay one for long.

thanks for the debate.

btw we're always always sober in the serious discussion forum. otherwise why have it

[altezon]

the cordoba group have assets of about 20'000 and are onlt part of a consortium theat have very little cash at hand. though it's called cordoba house it is not owned solely by the cordoba group. soho properties own part of the site and the site lease for the other part. cordoba group is just a really small investor so why you keep touting their name i have no idea. one of the reasons people are against the mosque is in fact the name "cordoba house" as that is a derogotory name where christians are concerned after muslims overran the christians at certian places in spain.
the cordoba group have assets of about 20'000 and are onlt part of a consortium theat have very little cash at hand. though it's called cordoba house it is not owned solely by the cordoba group. soho properties own part of the site and the site lease for the other part. cordoba group is just a really small investor so why you keep touting their name i have no idea.

one of the stepping stones your non owning cordoba group who don't actually own but only have a small investment in the project face is the same as soho properties face. there is a hue and cry for them to say where the cash (100 mil dollars) is coming from.
some are sceptical that it's probably coming from terror organisations. and countries who have axes to grind against the west. while bloomberg and some others say we don't need to know there intellect has to be questioned on the matter. if indeed it does come about that the mosque is funded by terrorist organisations and states they'll look rather silly. to simply say no one needs to know seems a little perturbing.

the ex hamas leader has been seen to speak on behalf of the soho group on cnn. i saw him doing it. my eye sight is bad but i yet to be deemed blind.

Since we're serious, let's be accurate. There is no "Cordoba Group" associated with the project. There's the Cordoba Initiative, which is the group that has purchased the building at 45-47 Park Place. They aren't merely investors:

The Cordoba Initiative, of which Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is founder and chairman, is a multi-faith non-profit organization whose aim is to improve relations between different communities, and in particular between the Muslim world and the United States of America.

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=cont...-questions.

I repeat, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is the founder of the Cordoba House project.
Hamas leader Mahmoud a-Zahar isn't a "front-man" for the project and has nothing to do with it.
Your "source" at http://www.haaretz.com/news/internationa...o-1.308387 doesn't support your assertion that he does,
and neither does the information you lifted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordoba_House

[youtube]JfIPO7CVflA[/youtube]

Your ravings about the muslim peril have been totally unverifiable. If you insist on this argument without supporting it with something other than paranoid speculation, I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously.

the american gov can build buildings. it is not and has never been against any statutes fr them not to do so. once the building is done they simply say there you are new york, it's yours. they build a building not a church. just a shell building are not and have never been on their own deemed church, mosque or synagogue. before that can happen the ground has to be consecrated. something the gov can't do. people build churches, workmen build building. if this was not the case churches, mosques etc would never get planning permission?

You haven't read the link I gave you on the American separation of church and state. Can't hear ya.

inventing spurious but non the less usuable reasons.

bu·reauc·ra·cy (by-rkr-s)
n. pl. bu·reauc·ra·cies
1.
a. Administration of a government chiefly through bureaus or departments staffed with nonelected officials.
b. The departments and their officials as a group: promised to reorganize the federal bureaucracy.
2.
a. Management or administration marked by hierarchical authority among numerous offices and by fixed procedures: The new department head did not know much about bureaucracy.
b. The administrative structure of a large or complex organization: a midlevel manager in a corporate bureaucracy.
3. An administrative system in which the need or inclination to follow rigid or complex procedures impedes effective action: innovative ideas that get bogged down in red tape and bureaucracy.

all it takes is three separate people to complain about the noise to have a court order placed on them. all it takes is for three or more residents to complain that they are causing more congestion that before. all it takes is an odd lawsuit, one illegality in the contracts, surveys etc, of which they'll be dozens.

i think their should be a multi religious center at ground zero. (at ground zero)
but i doubt cordoba house will become a mosque and if it does i bet it doesn't stay one for long.

Sorry, but you can't define bureaucracy as

if they don't like they kill it with red tape. it's called bureaucracy

... and then switch to a dictionary definition that doesn't include malicious intent.

And your apparent eagerness to see the project fail is repugnant.

Have a look at the face of intolerance:

Wanted the building at 45-47 Park Place declared a landmark "because muslims are evil".
http://www.tribecatrib.com/news/2010/jul...r-wtc.html

Rauf and other muslims are citizens of the United States.

thanks for the debate.

I'm not done with you yet.

btw we're always always sober in the serious discussion forum. otherwise why have it

Good point. Try some serious research.

[srijantje]

I prefer an early definition of terrorism (whose source and precise wording
I can no longer find) proposed by a UN committee. The elements are simple:

The deliberate use of violence against noncombatants as a means of coercion.

It doesn't distinguish between governments and non-governmental entities, or between wartime and peacetime.

I like it because it reduces the definition to a set of acts and motives,
without emotional color, regardless of who the actor is.

that's pretty clear then